On Tue, 2011-08-23 at 15:07 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 05:15 , Liam R E Quin wrote:
[...]
> > Seems to me a requirement should be that the format issuitable for
> > archiving.
>
> I strongly agree. I also happen to think that this constitutes a
> strong endorsement in favour of using HTML5
There are two parts. One is technological and I think can easily be
addressed. For example, HTML documents could contain a link element with
rel="conformsto" to point to a specific draft, not for validation
purposes of course, but for archival purposes.
The second is philosophical. I'm actually 100% OK with using HTML 5 for
the HTML 5 specification itself. Once HTML 5 is a Rec I'm OK with using
it for other things too. I'm also OK with using HTML 5 for drafts that
are moving forward, with the understanding that they have a dependency
on the HTML 5 Rec. I wouldn't want an *unrelated* spec to be published
as a Recommendation right now, today, in HTML 5, just as I didn't want
RDFa to be used in Recs before RDFa was itself a Rec. This is because,
if we ask other people to wait for Recommendation before they use a
standard (which is what "Recommendation" means - we now recommend that
you use this) then we should wait ourselves.
Best,
Liam
--
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/